The first article mentions no scientific, logical, or astrological facts.

"The recent discovery of the intact flesh of a Tyrannosaurus rex with its "blood vessels—still flexible and elastic after 68 million years—and apparently intact cells"1 is a case in point. It would seem impossible for such soft structures to be preserved intact even for 6800 years, but evolutionists accept it on faith.

Similarly, Silurian fossil ostracodes supposedly 425 million years old have been found recently in England virtually identical to their modern-day counterparts and containing "a jaw-dropping amount of detail,"2 but this discovery does not faze evolutionists. They still believe it was buried 425 million years ago! "

Notice they fail to state how fast fossils break down, and are simply saying "It couldn't be that long. HA!"

It even states "insisting that total evolution is a scientific fact and creation is religion". Creation is religion. It is a story made up by some writer a few thousand years ago.

An absence of evolution does not lead to the automatic victory for creationism. One flaw in the evolution theory means we try to use evidence to fix, not just abandon it and turn to the bible.

"They try to find facts that will support their theory and then twist whatever evidence they have to make it support evolution." - Ha. Creationists twist facts and string them in a haphazard fashion to justify creationism.

"Unless you were trying to find proof for evolution, all you would determine from this is that whale's fins are similarly designed as that of limbs." - Firstly, if they are similar to the design of a limb, then it would be a fair hypothesis to say that whales came from an ancestor with limbs. What does creationism offer? That God simply copy and pasted the limb onto a whale and made it look like a fin?

"An eternal universe is not possible because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that usable energy is constantly being turned into non-usable energy."

Second law of Thermodynamics - "Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature."

Creationists often trump their special set of laws of Thermodynamics.

"Without the DNA for feathers then there is no mutation that could result in feathers. Without the DNA for scales there is no mutation that could result in scales. Without the DNA for gills there is no mutation that could result in gills." -

She's 14. She's at least 6 months behind on memes. The majority of her posts consist of less than 5 words. She likes Lady GaGa. She thinks she contributes, but I personally find it hilarious reading a thread when every post she writes is met with contempt or is ignored.

Either she's pretending to be a creationist to get attention or she's legitimately loopy. I'm betting on the former, though not a lot of people can be a creationist before the evidence overwhelms them.

At 3/5/2010 4:15:21 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:Either she's pretending to be a creationist to get attention or she's legitimately loopy. I'm betting on the former, though not a lot of people can be a creationist before the evidence overwhelms them.

At 3/5/2010 4:15:21 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:Either she's pretending to be a creationist to get attention or she's legitimately loopy. I'm betting on the former, though not a lot of people can be a creationist before the evidence overwhelms them.

Creationists have often pointed out that evolution is unscientific because it can never be proved by science to be true. It is not happening at present and without a time machine, they can never be sure that it happened in the past.

Creationists have pointed out no such thing, because such a statement is false.

A truer statement is that the theory of evolution, as an explanation for the current forms of life earth can not be subjected to empirical scientific rigour because it can not be re-created in a laboratory, nor observed in the absence of a time machine.

It does not make it 'unscientific' that is simply dishonest.

Regardless of how much an organism looks like it had been intelligently designed, evolutionists (without even sounding embarrassed) will insist that natural selection has the power to make it look like it was designed, even though it wasn't.

There is no reason why this should cause embarrasment, if the author understood the theory of evolution (regardless of whether or not they agreed to it) they would understand why evolution would produce organisms that would appear designed for their enviroment. In a crude or even metaphorical way that is almost what evolution is! The author is either dishonest or uneducated on the subject. In addition as this is science there should be no reason why a given example of this would cause embarrasment for having made a case for evolution, design, both or neither.

Furthermore, no matter what fossil they find out of its accepted place in the evolutionary "record," the evolutionists can "explain" how it got there.

A weasel of an argument. The author gives no indication of what fossils they regard to be out of place, not any consideration that these arguments may be valid. It also rather ignores the fact that if Creationism were to be true you would find modern type humans throughout the entirity of the fossil record.

So basically, all arguments for evolution are false because evolution is wrong. As creationism is true, no arguments need to be made in it's support. Brilliant!

The recent discovery of the intact flesh of a Tyrannosaurus rex with its "blood vessels—still flexible and elastic after 68 million years—and apparently intact cells"1 is a case in point. It would seem impossible for such soft structures to be preserved intact even for 6800 years, but evolutionists accept it on faith.

No, it would seem improbable to the average person.Now I did not know that such preservation was possible, if someone had asked me beforehand if such a thing could occur I probably would say no. But then I am not sufficiently educated on the matter that my opinion holds any weight. Neither is the author, whose 'PHD' if genuine is not in a scientific discipline.

On first glance the idea that the hexagonal stepping stones of the giants causeway in scotland could have been produced by nature, but they were. The simple fact is that the world is too complicated for truth to be simply assumed by the gut instincts uneducated person.

That's enough to thoroughly discredit the source!

I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.